Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 03:19:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1638 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > A straw man argument is setting up an easy but inaccurately depicted target
> > > that you can knock down. "America is wasting the oil it gets from Saddam,
> > > so it must go to war with him." If it was getting it already, why would it
> > > need to go to war? Is the oil really going to America? No.
> >
> > Even though I can easily agree with you on that (oil for US consumption
> > which is not from the GoM or Alaska comes primarily either from Venezuela or
> > West African countries), I think I must point out one does not need to *use*
> > the oil to benefit from it. We both know that the majority of the companies
> > who exploit the oil in the Arabian Region are american-controlled, and that
> > they generate a lot of profit from the drilling activity...
> > So yes, you are right in what you said *as you said it*. Just please don't
> > claim in the future that the oil from the Persian Gulf does not benefit the
> > US in any way - you haven't *said it*, but it can be implied from your
> > passionate rufuse of iraqui oil consumption by the US. Or am I 100% wrong? :-)
>
> Wrong in the sense that I never said that U.S. companies do not benefit from
> Middle Eastern oil in any way.
You are correct, you did not say that at any time. I also did not say you
did say it... :-) I just call your attention to the fact that it would be
wrong *if* you had that in mind. Therefere I chose the words "as you said
it" to be highlighted on my previous post.
After I posted I realized I might have written in a more "readable"
fashion... I have to apologize for my confuse style, I should have been able
to express myself more clearly. See, this is what gives to think in one
language and then transpose without careful thinking of the words used... :-/
> Dave is saying we want their oil because we
> are sucking up so much Middle Eastern oil (and specifically Iraqi oil) with
> our SUVs. My point is that we don't really depend on middle eastern oil,
> and certainly not Iraqi oil (directly, I understand that the oil market is
> interconnected and not wholly divorcable). There is a great deal of finger
> pointing in Europe at America for wanting the oil, but no acknowledgement of
> the real situation: those doing the biggest pointing are the ones currently
> getting the oil. Who's position is more suspect?
I agree with you regarding the actual consumption of the oil - that was what
I had read in your words prior to this post, and I'm not denying it in any way.
Middle eastern oil tends to go to Asia, though. Not Europe, we get ours from
Russia or Africa primarily :-P
> Of course, Bush is getting what he wants right now: higher profit margins
> for the oil companies based on sheer speculation.
Evidently. But since this situation benefits companies from all over, and
there is a crisis going on anyway, I won't even bother too much with that.
They make more on the gallon, but we buy less gallons...
Another nice thing is, the oil that's being bought now is due to be
delivered in the Summer, when there's less demand. So that helps to smooth
the price increase a bit :-)
> But really, what drives
> Bush is idiocy ("Never attribute to malice what can be explained by
> stupidity"). Somehow he thinks he has the moral imperative to oppose all
> "terrorism" (as he defines it) anywhere in the world. All I can say is he
> didn't even win a plurality of the vote *here*, much less abroad. :-)
Yep, it concerns me that he can have such messianic feelings. Worse: that he
has them and he's not called to reason. It's bad enough to have only yes-men
around, it's even worse when they incite psicotic behaviour :-/
Aside from the particular case of Iraq, one wonders what will come next; if
the sense of morality and "god-given-right" that Bush claims, much like
kings claimed in the 17th century, will fade away or keep on to greater
things, a lot more questionable than Iraq.
Just immagine for a second that after finishing up with Iraq he thinks he
does not like the Eiffel tower... "because it's ugly, and mean, and reaches
up for the sky, and it's french, and all..." What then? Will his sense of
mission make him declare war to erradicate that "evil"?
Of course the example is absurd, but I think you can read in it my fears.
That man is opening a Pandora's box... it's very funny now that he's on the
powerful side, but it will inevitably turn against him or his followers in
office when the American hegemony declines. Which it will, again inevitably
- it's the nature of things.
All that is why I want tangible motives for the intervention at hand. Not
"trucks with moving labs", or whatever; I want Bush to state what makes
Saddam so different from others, what makes him a present danger (real
danger, that is), and essencially what will come after him. That said, I'll
even consider going to demonstrate pro-war!
Pedro
(consumer of Angolan oil, primarily)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Wrong in the sense that I never said that U.S. companies do not benefit from Middle Eastern oil in any way. Dave is saying we want their oil because we are sucking up so much Middle Eastern oil (and specifically Iraqi oil) with our SUVs. My (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
